in chemistry at least, you can modify the thermokinetics without having the reaction fail to be spontaneous.
but to call a complex reaction system spontaneous seems contrived.
Your point would have some sense... but
cabbies don't own their cars... The people who drive them are peons who rent them. The highest component cost of having a NYC taxi is the medallion that validates it as a nyc taxi.
Even if I did choose to change something about my life, it would have no bearing on free will.
True but that's because the way you live is predicated on the belief that you make choices that matter. So your argument is ad logicam even though it has a valid conclusion. The order is backwards. It would be better to say that even if free will were proven false, that would have no bearing on you living as if you have it.
The problem with free will is whether you have it or whether you don't it makes absolutely zero difference in your life (we're talking philosophical free will here, not material, so no one give me the snarky "I'm in jail you insensitive clod" response).
The person in jail lacks material freedom not free will -- unless you were insinuating that psychopathic behavior is causally determined.
Everyone makes decisions with the implicit belief that their decisions matter. Now, if we have free will, then they actually do. If we don't have free will, then they actually don't. Regardless, you make the same damn decision, and it will have the same consequences.
Yes, this is a restatement of Kant's argument that we posit the existence of our will (free) as a necessary correlate of practical reason.
So why the eternal wanking over whether or not we possess a property that cannot be measured and doesn't effect our lives in any way?
while i see your point...
often you aren't paid to document things. At least, I am not.
I am told, get this out by yesterday. That doesn't include any time to document things.
what parent is forgetting about grandparent is that grandpa is obsessed with "free" and would not dare to allow a binary onto his system that he did not get from svn and compile.
hylomorphism, which is not essentially religious, would hold that soul is common to all living things but different in kind depending on the living thing.
His claim is minutely different from that but still equally strange and incorrect.
If (some x)Fx, then (any x)(possibly Fx).
while generically valid, there is an obvious counter example:
from a blue chair, it would follow anything can be blue. But blue space or blue Mars are both preposterous.
So it doesn't follow that merely because a human has something that anything could have it.
That's funny... you must not know much about the history of logic. Until Frege, all of it was written by Medieval theologians. They had logics as advanced (if more difficult to work) as much of the best contemporary stuff.
e.g. temporal logic, distinctions of thought and real distinctions, ternary and quaternary logics, modality.
re: the price:
not just presumably. if it's a GSA contract, the government is guaranteed to get the lowest price you charge for it. If you try to screw them on this, then they can fine you or put you in prison
from an information security standpoint, this actually makes some sense. Allow me to explain.
First, the high value number is going to show up in budgets anyway, so anyone who wants that number could already find it. It's hard to not have a few million dollars show up in the accounting somehow.
Second, the reason the exact dollar value per part is usually redacted is that this is a giant clue as to the identity of the part used in the infrastructure.
E.g. if I tell you I have a $300 mp3 player, then you know that I have an IPOD. But if I tell you that I bought a bunch of mp3 players and spent $100,000 then you don't know whether I've bought Zens, Zunes, ipods, sansas, or something else.
And the problem with telling people what your infrastructure is made of who shouldn't know is that it enables them to focus on vulnerabilities for just that one device.
caveat: I actually have a $10 mp3 player.
At the risk of being ignored and the slight chance of duplicating what someone else has said, I think Bill Gates has a sort of point.
As he is stating, there is a distinction between free software (BSD) and open software (GPL).
As I was reading the comments, there was the suggestion that his position is analogous to having a grocer not allow you to grow vegetables in your backyard. This is the equivalent of being against the BSD license.
If the grocer went further and said that if you found a better way of cultivating the crops and had to share it with them in order to eat their produce, then this would be a better analogy to the GPL.
The point is precisely that open source software carries viral consequences for the business that uses it. They can no longer make an improvement that advantages them -- they are legally required to share it with everyone. And in a certain sense, we do all gain by this since we gain the feature described.
In another sense, however, we experience a negative result. Businesses are no longer able to profit from ingenuity in the same way. Anything they do they must share, so they cannot reap the benefits of their own research.
Intel doesn't fabricate quad-core chips. The quad core processors that they sell are multi-chip modules (MCM) - two dual core chips stuck together in the same package. This is why AMD keeps going on about how their processors are "true quad core".
From an engineering perspective, Intel's approach is both more and less elegant than AMD's approach. Intel saved a bunch of design time, came to market earlier, and wastes less silicon when they have fabrication errors. AMD's processor cores can communicate more quickly, but for various reasons this doesn't mean they do better on real-world benchmarks.
In conclusion, Intel's not going to be releasing 3 core processors any time soon because they don't have a fabrication setup that tends to produce chips with 3 working cores the way AMD does.
Your facts are dead on. Your interpretation is strange: "more and less elegant." When we use adjectives, we take them to have meaning. If we use the adjective in both directions, then it is meaningless.
Maybe you meant to say "In Intel's case, the chip itself is less elegant, but this enables them to be more elegant in producing a quad-core package. In AMD's case, the chip itself is more elegant, but this makes the package as a whole no more elegant than previous designs."
i see the point you are making. but 'cult' doesn't have traditional and technical definitions. It has a historical definition and a sociological usage.
The former [historical] refers to the examples of Isis, etc. That's what cult meant when people used it in the past.
The latter [sociological] refers to a cluster of distinct but essentially similar groups that use techniques similar to what you've specified.
Slashdot Mirror
ever heard of power management?
it's on by default in windows.
maybe you should figure out what your settings are for linux?
only if accept libraries that are not GPL-compliant in your distro.
I agree wholeheartedly.
And the submarines beneath it ...
How long have you believed this? Oh right, only since the hype machine got started.
in chemistry at least, you can modify the thermokinetics without having the reaction fail to be spontaneous. but to call a complex reaction system spontaneous seems contrived.
Your point would have some sense ... but
cabbies don't own their cars... The people who drive them are peons who rent them. The highest component cost of having a NYC taxi is the medallion that validates it as a nyc taxi.
Even if I did choose to change something about my life, it would have no bearing on free will.
True but that's because the way you live is predicated on the belief that you make choices that matter. So your argument is ad logicam even though it has a valid conclusion.
The order is backwards. It would be better to say that even if free will were proven false, that would have no bearing on you living as if you have it.
The problem with free will is whether you have it or whether you don't it makes absolutely zero difference in your life (we're talking philosophical free will here, not material, so no one give me the snarky "I'm in jail you insensitive clod" response).
The person in jail lacks material freedom not free will -- unless you were insinuating that psychopathic behavior is causally determined.
Everyone makes decisions with the implicit belief that their decisions matter. Now, if we have free will, then they actually do. If we don't have free will, then they actually don't. Regardless, you make the same damn decision, and it will have the same consequences.
Yes, this is a restatement of Kant's argument that we posit the existence of our will (free) as a necessary correlate of practical reason.
So why the eternal wanking over whether or not we possess a property that cannot be measured and doesn't effect our lives in any way?
Agreed.
while i see your point... often you aren't paid to document things. At least, I am not. I am told, get this out by yesterday. That doesn't include any time to document things.
what parent is forgetting about grandparent is that grandpa is obsessed with "free" and would not dare to allow a binary onto his system that he did not get from svn and compile.
is there some sort of internal organizing principle that is self-motivating you can see the effects of?
if so, then you've demonstrated the existence of a soul.
it really depends on what you mean by soul
is there some sort of thing that orders all of your behavior as an internal principle?
if your answer is yes, then you believe you have a soul on Aristotle's definition.
Are you conscious?
Then you believe you have a soul on Descartes' definition
hylomorphism, which is not essentially religious, would hold that soul is common to all living things but different in kind depending on the living thing.
His claim is minutely different from that but still equally strange and incorrect. If (some x)Fx, then (any x)(possibly Fx). while generically valid, there is an obvious counter example: from a blue chair, it would follow anything can be blue. But blue space or blue Mars are both preposterous. So it doesn't follow that merely because a human has something that anything could have it.
Thanks Descartes!
That's funny... you must not know much about the history of logic.
Until Frege, all of it was written by Medieval theologians. They had logics as advanced (if more difficult to work) as much of the best contemporary stuff.
e.g. temporal logic, distinctions of thought and real distinctions, ternary and quaternary logics, modality.
which is why it's a really bad theory.
but it remains a great piece of data.
so when a terrorist posts a video, free speech is the guiding principle.
when anyone posts a video that someone else wants to make money from (e.g. DMCA), then this is the guiding principle.
I'd say I am confused, but I'll leave the explanation as an exercise for the reader.
re: the price: not just presumably. if it's a GSA contract, the government is guaranteed to get the lowest price you charge for it. If you try to screw them on this, then they can fine you or put you in prison
(I have written a GSA contract before).
from an information security standpoint, this actually makes some sense. Allow me to explain. First, the high value number is going to show up in budgets anyway, so anyone who wants that number could already find it. It's hard to not have a few million dollars show up in the accounting somehow. Second, the reason the exact dollar value per part is usually redacted is that this is a giant clue as to the identity of the part used in the infrastructure. E.g. if I tell you I have a $300 mp3 player, then you know that I have an IPOD. But if I tell you that I bought a bunch of mp3 players and spent $100,000 then you don't know whether I've bought Zens, Zunes, ipods, sansas, or something else. And the problem with telling people what your infrastructure is made of who shouldn't know is that it enables them to focus on vulnerabilities for just that one device. caveat: I actually have a $10 mp3 player.
or stated alternately... it reveals that open source has an agenda that differs from free software.
At the risk of being ignored and the slight chance of duplicating what someone else has said, I think Bill Gates has a sort of point.
As he is stating, there is a distinction between free software (BSD) and open software (GPL).
As I was reading the comments, there was the suggestion that his position is analogous to having a grocer not allow you to grow vegetables in your backyard. This is the equivalent of being against the BSD license.
If the grocer went further and said that if you found a better way of cultivating the crops and had to share it with them in order to eat their produce, then this would be a better analogy to the GPL.
The point is precisely that open source software carries viral consequences for the business that uses it. They can no longer make an improvement that advantages them -- they are legally required to share it with everyone. And in a certain sense, we do all gain by this since we gain the feature described.
In another sense, however, we experience a negative result. Businesses are no longer able to profit from ingenuity in the same way. Anything they do they must share, so they cannot reap the benefits of their own research.
Intel doesn't fabricate quad-core chips. The quad core processors that they sell are multi-chip modules (MCM) - two dual core chips stuck together in the same package. This is why AMD keeps going on about how their processors are "true quad core".
From an engineering perspective, Intel's approach is both more and less elegant than AMD's approach. Intel saved a bunch of design time, came to market earlier, and wastes less silicon when they have fabrication errors. AMD's processor cores can communicate more quickly, but for various reasons this doesn't mean they do better on real-world benchmarks.
In conclusion, Intel's not going to be releasing 3 core processors any time soon because they don't have a fabrication setup that tends to produce chips with 3 working cores the way AMD does.
Your facts are dead on. Your interpretation is strange: "more and less elegant." When we use adjectives, we take them to have meaning. If we use the adjective in both directions, then it is meaningless. Maybe you meant to say "In Intel's case, the chip itself is less elegant, but this enables them to be more elegant in producing a quad-core package. In AMD's case, the chip itself is more elegant, but this makes the package as a whole no more elegant than previous designs."i see the point you are making. but 'cult' doesn't have traditional and technical definitions. It has a historical definition and a sociological usage. The former [historical] refers to the examples of Isis, etc. That's what cult meant when people used it in the past. The latter [sociological] refers to a cluster of distinct but essentially similar groups that use techniques similar to what you've specified.
Only one minor quibble.
It's not your country's right to exist that depends on the guns -- it's the existence of the guns that maintains your country's existence.
these guns/government, in turn, maintain the rights that the country says you have (which validates your overall point).